FirePro M4000 vs ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5870
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Mobility Radeon HD 5870 with FirePro M4000, including specs and performance data.
M4000 outperforms ATI Mobility HD 5870 by a substantial 39% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 793 | 699 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 4.08 | 8.62 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) |
| GPU code name | Broadway | Chelsea |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 7 January 2010 (15 years ago) | 27 June 2012 (12 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 800 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 700 MHz | 675 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,040 million | 1,500 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 33 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 28.00 | 21.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.12 TFLOPS | 0.6912 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 40 | 32 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Laptop size | large | medium sized |
| Bus support | no data | n/a |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Form factor | no data | MXM-A |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 64 GB/s | 72 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
| StereoOutput3D | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| 900p | 31
−29%
| 40−45
+29%
|
| Full HD | 39
+44.4%
| 27
−44.4%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−100%
|
14−16
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
−66.7%
|
14−16
+66.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−100%
|
14−16
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−100%
|
10−11
+100%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
−57.1%
|
21−24
+57.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−28.6%
|
18−20
+28.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
−80%
|
9−10
+80%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−23.1%
|
16−18
+23.1%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−17.8%
|
50−55
+17.8%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
−66.7%
|
14−16
+66.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−100%
|
14−16
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 50−55
−30.2%
|
65−70
+30.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 27−30
−29.6%
|
35−40
+29.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−100%
|
10−11
+100%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
−57.1%
|
21−24
+57.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−28.6%
|
18−20
+28.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
−80%
|
9−10
+80%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 8−9
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−23.1%
|
16−18
+23.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−22.2%
|
10−12
+22.2%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−17.8%
|
50−55
+17.8%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
−66.7%
|
14−16
+66.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 27−30
−29.6%
|
35−40
+29.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−100%
|
10−11
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−28.6%
|
18−20
+28.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−23.1%
|
16−18
+23.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−22.2%
|
10−12
+22.2%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−17.8%
|
50−55
+17.8%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 14−16
−57.1%
|
21−24
+57.1%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 20−22
−45%
|
27−30
+45%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 2−3 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
−25%
|
30−33
+25%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−57.7%
|
40−45
+57.7%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
−42.9%
|
20−22
+42.9%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 8−9
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
This is how ATI Mobility HD 5870 and FirePro M4000 compete in popular games:
- FirePro M4000 is 29% faster in 900p
- ATI Mobility HD 5870 is 44% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the FirePro M4000 is 100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- FirePro M4000 is ahead in 54 tests (96%)
- there's a draw in 2 tests (4%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.56 | 3.57 |
| Recency | 7 January 2010 | 27 June 2012 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 33 Watt |
FirePro M4000 has a 39.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 51.5% lower power consumption.
The FirePro M4000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Mobility Radeon HD 5870 in performance tests.
Be aware that Mobility Radeon HD 5870 is a notebook graphics card while FirePro M4000 is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
